Recently, while following the APRO project, I discovered an interesting phenomenon.

Actually, many of our debates are not really about whether the project itself is good or not, but about different perspectives. Some see it as the next-generation oracle, some expect it to become the data gateway for agents, others consider it a source of evidence in the RWA world, and some position it as the infrastructure closest to AI narratives. All sound plausible, but each is actually talking about four different things.

The problem is: everyone is using different standards to evaluate APRO. If we keep measuring it this way, the arguments will never end. Even more painfully, it's easy to use the wrong tools to assess it, resulting in either overly optimistic praise or outright condemnation.

I want to offer a possibly unpopular judgment: **The most dangerous thing about APRO right now is not that it's moving too slowly, but that market pressure is forcing it to "prove itself too quickly."**

The path of unstructured data, by nature, cannot produce definitive results as quickly as directly feeding in prices. The more urgent you are to give the market a certain answer, the more likely this project is to rush into launch before its fundamental mechanisms are truly stable, and a single mistake could shatter the accumulated trust. For infrastructure projects, once you fall, it's incredibly hard to get back up.

So my current advice to myself is: evaluate APRO from three different dimensions, score each separately, rather than forcing it into a single conclusion. This way, you can see things more clearly.